If you were American, would you support greater gun control in the US?

[buck]

OK so you clearly think that you are the world authority on all matters. Do you seriously believe what happened in America and Norway couldn't happen here?

Perhaps instead of making smart comments you could come out with something constructive, because there are shootings in this country just like every other country. There are criminals with guns and nutcases with delusions.

 

So rather than try telling other nations how they might better run their affairs let's here your ideas of how you would prevent similar acts being carried out here and how you would tackle events if they did? Is that too much for you?

 

How would you deal with a Brievik?

It already has happened there, and with small schoolchildren dead. What worries me is the complacency and the cynicism. Most people in my acquaintance do not even own a gun, and the ones that do handle them correctly. I have a military background so have a pretty good idea about firearm management. Newtown has opened some eyes about what is needed, and the politicians are worried as hell, as they're finding that gun control is now a big political issue. Less than a mile from where I live is a massive gun store, too close to homes. It has been selling guns directly from a truck shipping guns from out of state which is illegal and assault weapons, and large capacity mags. Guns were also being stolen in full view of the in store cameras, without any effort to be recovered. ATF found 20 weapons unaccounted for. They have thankfully been shut down. ATF ( Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) is a Federal operation, and gun control needs to be taken out of State management into Federal management. Edited January 5, 2013 by buck

[Old Tom]

It already has happened there, and with small schoolchildren dead. What worries me is the complacency and the cynicism. Most people in my acquaintance do not even own a gun, and the ones that do handle them correctly. I have a military background so have a pretty good idea about firearm management. Newtown has opened some eyes about what is needed, and the politicians are worried as hell, as they're finding that gun control is now a big political issue. Less than a mile from where I live is a massive gun store, too close to homes. It has been selling guns directly from a truck shipping guns from out of state which is illegal and assault weapons, and large capacity mags. Guns were also being stolen in full view of the in store cameras, without any effort to be recovered. ATF found 20 weapons unaccounted for. They have thankfully been shut down. ATF ( Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) is a Federal operation, and gun control needs to be taken out of State management into Federal management.

 

I fully agree with you sport.

There is a certain irony that folk were jumping up and down about fox hunting, saying the way to control foxes was with guns. I'm not sure that shooting foxes is the most humane way of killing the things but there you have it.

Lizmachin mentioned restricted magazine size on guns. Certainly there is little more dangerous than a folding pump action shotgun and for any type of hunting I find it difficult to know why anyone would need such a weapon. However a ban or restriction is only as good as the authorities ability to keep restricted weapons out of the hands of the would be killer. They can't manage that on an island like the UK, so how the hell do they expect to achieve it in a country with 6 thousand miles of land borders?

[Agent Orange]

Well if you bothered to read the thread the crazy scenarios were outlining how folk who wanted to kill would find a method to do it, and in a society where there were no guns a nutter with a machete could cause many deaths before anyone could stop him.

So Brievik decided on a plan, obtained his weapons and learned how to use them. He made bombs and used them as well. Harold Shipman murdered hundreds without guns because he planned his murders.

This thread was started as a response to a mass school killing in the USA. Constructive discussion involves suggestions of how that might be prevented. However it isn't as simple as simple firearm restrictions because someone intent on murder will have access to alternatives, and if determined will access firearms regardless of any laws.

 

Certainly the crazy scenarios are more constructive than anything you've contributed.

 

I have read the thread, thank you.

 

How long do you think it would take someone with a machete to kill 70 people?

 

Do you not believe that taking guns out of public use would lead to less massacres?

 

Yes, right

[johncocker]

I fully agree with you sport.

There is a certain irony that folk were jumping up and down about fox hunting, saying the way to control foxes was with guns. I'm not sure that shooting foxes is the most humane way of killing the things but there you have it.

Lizmachin mentioned restricted magazine size on guns. Certainly there is little more dangerous than a folding pump action shotgun and for any type of hunting I find it difficult to know why anyone would need such a weapon. However a ban or restriction is only as good as the authorities ability to keep restricted weapons out of the hands of the would be killer. They can't manage that on an island like the UK, so how the hell do they expect to achieve it in a country with 6 thousand miles of land borders?

 

probably would'nt work in the states but,

there was the gun buy back scheme in australia after the port arthur massacre

were all semi automatic rifles were made illegal.

Edited January 5, 2013 by johncocker

[Old Tom]

I have read the thread, thank you.

 

How long do you think it would take someone with a machete to kill 70 people?

 

Do you not believe that taking guns out of public use would lead to less massacres?

 

Yes, right

 

How long do you think it would take for someone to tackle a man with a machete intent on hacking his way through a school or cinema? How many do you think would be hacked in the meantime?

 

Do you think that the US would be able to take guns out of public use when they have 6000 miles of land borders?

 

 

Yes right

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2013 at 14:29 ----------

 

probably would'nt work in the states but,

there was the gun buy back scheme in australia after the port arthur massacre

were all semi automatic rifles were made illegal.

 

I think laws restricting ownership of certain types of weapons is a good thing. Restricting magazine sizes is sensible. However such law never applies to law breakers and criminals, and as we saw with Anders Brievik he was able to shoot dead 69 and wound a further 110 with no more than a standard hunting rifle.

To kill on a large scale you don't need to be able to kill quickly if it takes the authorities an hour and a half to stop you doing it.

[Agent Orange]

How long do you think it would take for someone to tackle a man with a machete intent on hacking his way through a school or cinema? How many do you think would be hacked in the meantime?

 

Do you think that the US would be able to take guns out of public use when they have 6000 miles of land borders?

 

 

Yes right

 

I asked you a question and yet you respond with question. How about showing some common courtesy and answering it

 

The US could take guns out of public use, if they so wish, however it wouldn't be an easy task. It might be worth noting, more weapons are smuggled into Mexico from the US, than the other way round. The reason being, the US borders are pretty tight when it comes to smuggling.

[Old Tom]

I asked you a question and yet you respond with question. How about showing some common courtesy and answering it

 

The US could take guns out of public use, if they so wish, however it wouldn't be an easy task. It might be worth noting, more weapons are smuggled into Mexico from the US, than the other way round. The reason being, the US borders are pretty tight when it comes to smuggling.

 

OK. To kill 70 people with a machete I would think would take 35 minutes. How long do you think a maniac would have in a cinema in the UK before armed response arrived?

 

I fail to see your point about more guns being smuggled into Mexico from the US than vice versa. That's because the US manufactures them and there isn't the need to smuggle them in from Mexico. Hower if they were banned in the USA that would be a whole different ball game. I presume you can understand that?

[Agent Orange]

OK. To kill 70 people with a machete I would think would take 35 minutes. How long do you think a maniac would have in a cinema in the UK before armed response arrived?

 

I fail to see your point about more guns being smuggled into Mexico from the US than vice versa. That's because the US manufactures them and there isn't the need to smuggle them in from Mexico. Hower if they were banned in the USA that would be a whole different ball game. I presume you can understand that?

 

35 minutes is a bit optimistic, everyone will either have run off, got bored, killed you or you got you arrested before you got anywhere near double figures. Armed response would take around 10 minutes or thereabouts, I would think.

 

I was trying to point out that the US borders are pretty tight, so I would think they would get tighter if there was to be a firearm ban.

[Old Tom]

35 minutes is a bit optimistic, everyone will either have run off, got bored, killed you or you got you arrested before you got anywhere near double figures. Armed response would take around 10 minutes or thereabouts, I would think.

 

I was trying to point out that the US borders are pretty tight, so I would think they would get tighter if there was to be a firearm ban.

 

That's the whole point. They don't run off. In the school in the USA teachers huddled with children in corners and tried to hide. It doesn't take too long to whack someone with a machete.

 

The police in the New Forest came under fire (not gun fire) in December for taking more than 20 minutes to arrive at the scene of an armed kidnap. It isn't really difficult to see why.

 

Once an incident takes place folk need time to react and make the 999 call. 2 minutes gone already..The call takes time. They need to establish the facts. 5 minutes can easily have past before the armed response even know there's an emergency. Then they have to get there (if they aren't already dealing with another incident) How many armed response cars do we have in Sheffield?

Even getting armed officers to the cinema in Meadowhall would probably be a minimum 10 minute drive. It could easily be double. Then they need to get their kit and get to the cinema. What do you reckon? another 5 minutes? A bit of dither time taking instructions. That sounds like 20/25 minutes to me. So how many casualties would you anticipate them finding?

Now if the same happened at a village school in Scotland>..............

 

Why would you imagine the US borders being pretty tight?. US citizens don't even need a passport to go to and from most of the Caribbean. There are 10s of thousands of illegals cross the borders every year. The land borders are 6000 miles long and the sea borders even longer.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Old Tom

[Chris_Sleeps]

There is a certain irony that folk were jumping up and down about fox hunting, saying the way to control foxes was with guns. I'm not sure that shooting foxes is the most humane way of killing the things but there you have it.

Chase mass murderers with a pack of hounds then.

OK. To kill 70 people with a machete I would think would take 35 minutes.

What do you base that figure on? That it takes 30 seconds to kill every person? It's not a production line.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Chris_Sleeps